Personal attacks etc (was Re: USA: National Security Strategy...)

[jamesd at echeque.com]

On 1/5/2018 8:03 AM, jim bell wrote:
> Actually, most forms of totalitarian governments advocate killing 
> people, including their own citizenry.  Why narrow down your objections, 
> artificially, to "fascism"?

Fascist governments most certainly do not advocate killing their own 
citizenry, but are apt to define "citizen" in an alarmingly narrow 
fashion. From her name, I would suspect that Marina might not 
necessarily be defined as a citizen were a fascist government take power 
in America.

Left wing governments generally advocate killing class enemies, or 
royalists, or aristocrats, and this time around will probably advocate 
killing "racists" and "sexists"

At the time that they start killing people belonging to this category, 
no one remains who believes that they belong to this category, but 
pretty soon, very large numbers of people belonging to this category are 
discovered.

And soon after that, even larger numbers of such wicked people.

And not long after that, even more.

Right wing dictatorships generally forbid interest in politics.  As 
Charles the first told us, politics is the King's business and no one 
elses.  Thus right wing political killings are necessarily self 
limiting.  If you start killing large numbers of people for taking 
excessive interest in politics, people lose interest in politics.

Left wing dictatorships generally insist on interest in politics.  The 
personal is political.  Which rapidly becomes terrifying, and soon after 
that, increasingly terrifying.  Thus left wing political repression, 
unlike right wing political repression, is not self limiting.

Reflect on the infamous "Dear Colleague" letter from the Obama 
administration, recently rescinded by the Trump administration.

The practical effect of the letter is that if a third party deems some 
woman has been raped the evil rapists life must be very publicly 
destroyed without bothering with any inconveniences like charges, 
investigation, or evidence.

The circumstances leading to this letter was that we established the 
principle that women always tell the truth about rape, sexual assault, 
and sexual harassment.

Well, actually we established the principle that women always lie when 
they deny rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment, but if a woman 
arguably changes her story during a struggle session after three big fat 
hairy lesbians have been screaming in her face for two hours straight, 
*then* she is telling the truth.

Hence the significance of the reference to "third parties" in the Dear 
Colleague letter. Note that the accused cannot cross examine the 
complainant, or even learn who the complainant is.

Recollect that when Crystal Mangum was detained by police for drunken 
violence after a night of industrious whoring, she gave numerous 
different stories, only one of which accused the Duke University sports 
team of rape, but the authorities insisted on going with the story that 
accused the sports team.  She could easily have been steered towards a 
less dramatic story, or steered to claiming flying saucer abduction, or 
best of all, steered to confessing to drunken violence after a night of 
industrious whoring.  But hey, if sexual violence is on the table, women 
are always the victims, and men always the aggressors, even if it needs 
two cops to restrain the "victim".

So if police catch a drunk woman in a criminal act, she just has to say 
"sexual assault, domestic abuse, domestic violence", and she is golden. 
Just as restraining illegal immigrants who murder white people for 
racial reasons might deter illegal immigrants from exercising their 
rights, restraining drunken violent women from criminal acts might deter 
them from complaining about sexual harassment and sexual violence.  And 
we cannot have that, can we?

We also saw this principle in operation in the safe space conflict.  If 
someone said something that might make a member of the umpteenth gender 
uncomfortable, no actual complainant of the umpteenth gender need to be 
produced, nor any evidence that a single member of the umpteenth gender 
exists anywhere near the incident. And what with "microaggression" the 
possibility of making someone of an ever increasing number of ever 
smaller categories uncomfortable expands without limit.